Re: [sudo-discuss] [omni-discuss] I'm going to pee sitting down at the omni: A call for others to join.

I effing love this thread. YAR, you're point on. Lol. Toilet rights!! ~ Korl 500px.com/eske 510.689.4484 On Jan 13, 2015 3:37 PM, "Thomas Levine" <_(a)thomaslevine.com> wrote: > I have excerpted some relevant sections of McClelland & Ward, 1982. > > First, the study supports the suggestion of longer seats. > > > The apertures of the nonstandard seats used in this study were 0.07m > > longer than the currently recommended aperture. Longer apertures were > > clearly an improvement over recommended ones in terms of access. > > This confirms the suggestion made as a result of the previous > > anthropometric survey that a longer aperture would be more > > appropriate for toilet use. An enlarged seat aperture incorporated > > into future standards for the design of toilet seats would > > necessitate a longer bowl aperture than currently recommended. > > If the bowl aperture were not extended to be coincident with the seat, > > then at some point the rim would come within the aperture of the seat, > > and soiling of the bowl might result. > > > > Two consequences would result from the to the most negative responses. > > adoption of a longer seat aperture as standard, and these would be of > > great importance for the design of toilet sanitary ware and the > > related facilities. First, a longer aperture would require a major > > reappraisal of existing toilet designs by the sanitary-ware industry; > > this undoubtedly would involve considerable development and expense. > > The second consequence involves water economy. If a longer aperture > > were adopted, then the internal surface area of the bowl would > > probably increase or at least change in profile. This raises the > > question as to whether the demand that toilet bowls be flushed > > effectively with less water is compatible with a longer aperture. > > This paper is not the appropriate platform for a lengthy discussion > > of these topics, but if a new standard for toilet bowls is to be > > established that satisfies ergonomic criteria, then it is clear from > > this study that the question of the aperture length for both toilet > > seat and bowl needs to be resolved. In the authors' view, this would > > only be possible if a further study were undertaken, which would be > > based on the evaluation of fully operational toilet units. > > Secondarily, the results suggest that people, especially women, > prefer seats that support the buttocks and thighs well. > > > Given the similarities of seated positions adopted by men and women, > > the differences in preference may be due to the well-known anatomical > > differences that exist between men and women with respect to the > > pelvic region, in particular the differences in bi-ischial diameter > > and the distribution of flesh around the buttocks and thighs. These > > differences may require different emphasis on the support provided by > > toilet seats. However, as already noted, in terms of the psychometric > > scales used, both Seat 3, for men, and Seat 4, for women, were > > acceptable. Thus, given the constraint of selecting one seat type for > > both men and women, the results suggest that improvements in seat > > comfort may be obtained by providing greater support for both buttocks > > and thighs. > > Finally, nobody had brought up the height of the seats, but I have to > mention their findings on this matter > > > It is clear that the most significant difference in height > > requirement is between men and women. The overall seat heights > > derived from this study (HI) were, for men, a mean of 0.43m, > > standard deviation 0.030 m, and for women, mean 0.40 m, standard > > deviation 0.033 m. Accepting the premise that only one type of toilet > > bowl and seat can be considered for general use by adults, a toilet > > seat height of 0.4 m is recommended for the U.K. adult population. > > This height is, of course, based on the preference of unshod > > subjects. To take account of "average" indoor shoe heel heights, > > a value of, say, 0.050 m could be added, giving a figure of 0.450 m > > for seat height. This would be 0.020 m higher than the seat height of > > 0.430 m calculated to be the current British standard. The adoption > > of a seat at this height (0.450 m) would, however, militate against > > its suitability for the shorter members of the population, for > > example, small women wearing low-heeled footwear. The preferred > > height (Table 2) of the 2.5th percentile unshod female subjects was > > 0.338 m. A seat height of 0.450 m would thus be 0.112 m greater than > > that preferred by them and would, in fact, accord with the height > > preferences for only the 50th percentile female wearing heels of at > > least 5 em. A seat height of 0.450 m would be 0.030 m lower than the > > preferred overall height of 50th percentile male subjects if 0.050m > > is added for "average" shoe heel height (Table 2); it would be 0.050m > > higher than the preferred height of the 2.5th percentile male subject > > unshod. Because of the considerable body of opinion, already referred > > to, on the advantages of the squat rather than the seated posture, > > particularly for defecation, seat height favoring a comfortable > > seated posture for the smaller members of the population and a more > > squat posture for taller people, is to be preferred to one that was > > too high for smaller individuals in the seated posture. It is > > therefore suggested that a seat height of 0.40 m (the mean height for > > women, unshod) would be better than 0.45m as a fixed height to > > accommodate the adult population; 0.40 m would also be closer to the > > needs of the young than would 0.45 m. This height is approximately > > 0.03m lower than the height of a toilet seat set on a toilet bowl > > both of which conform to the current British standards (British > > Standards Institution, 1971, I977a, 1977b). > > Tom > > On 13 Jan 11:38, Jehan Tremback wrote: > > Definately plastic > > > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Patrik D'haeseleer <patrikd(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Thomas Levine <_(a)thomaslevine.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> I think new seats would also create a sense of maintenance/neatness > that > > >> would encourage people to be neat themselves. Also, if we do get new > > >> seats, > > >> we might consider the findings of Ian McClelland and Joan Ward > regarding > > >> the toilet seat preferences of different sexes. > > >> > > >> Ian L. McClelland and Joan S. Ward (1982). The Ergonomics of Toilet > Seats. > > >> Human Factors, 24(6): 713—725. > > >> > > >> That paper is proprietary, unfortunately, but I can recount it for > anyone > > >> who is interested. > > >> > > > > > > Please do! Any recommendations regarding open vs closed front, wood vs > > > plastic? > > > > > > Patrik > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > sudo-discuss mailing list > > > sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org > > > https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss(a)lists.omnicommons.org > https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/discuss > >